Immigration in Arizona

Bravo, Marco Rubio

I CAN'T disagree with the substance of this response to the Arizona immigration law from Marco Rubio:

States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona's policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don't believe Arizona's policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,' are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

Arizona cops are being told that they must stop those they "suspect" of being in the country illegally (or risk being sued by local communities, even). Meanwhile, the law's backers claim against all reason that it surely cannot lead to racial profiling. So what would make you suspect anyone was in the country illegally but would not constitute racial profiling? I do speak Spanish, but then again, I also have a Georgia Bulldogs sticker on my truck and am whiter than Casper the Friendly Ghost giving a polar bear CPR on Greenland. I may be just about the only person the Arizona cops could pull over without getting sued if (they should be so lucky!) I drive through Arizona and order en español at a taco stand. The law's defenders in the Newsweek article above give a hypothetical scenario of someone pulled over for speeding who cannot produce an address and doesn't speak English—precisely why immigrants were fairly unlikely to do 56 miles per hour in a 55 zone even before the law. This kind of scenario, I can guarantee immigration-weary Arizonans, will not solve their problem. For the police, it could be profile aggressively or perish under lawsuits (the latter being the reason the cops can't just ignore the law as unenforceable). It's an idiotic brief to give the boys in blue, and kudos for Mr Rubio for courageously saying so.

You're missing the bigger point in Rubio's statement. He's trying to have it both ways here -- he says he has 'concerns' with it, as he must as a son of an immigrant family, but he then goes on to blame the Obama Administration for it. He says 'throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.' To claim that this has something to do with the Administration is just bonkers.

You also leave out the last paragraph of his statement, which says: “I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation." That's his dog-whistle to the anti-immigrant right wing to say that he will stand with them when they ask him to oppose immigration reform. As anything that comes through Congress has to do something about the people already in the country, it will be labeled as 'amnesty' by the right.

So, Rubio gets to have it both ways in his campaign. He can say he supports immigration reform, and get people like you to fawn over him, and he can say he opposes 'amnesty' and keep the hard-right's support.

The ironic point, somewhat highlighted by others in the comments, is that the politicians (and people) of Arizona have complained loudly about their rights being trampled in the small d democratic passage of healthcare legislation and yet they enact and now defend a law that specifically takes away rights given to citizens.

Notably:

1. The law criminalizes not being a citizen, a right not conferred by Arizona. It then criminalizes association with illegals - such as knowingly giving a person a ride - which goes all the way back to the Revolution's cries about freedom of association. Remember, a person is a resident of Arizona but a citizen of the United States so Arizona is deciding that your US right of freedom of association doesn't apply any longer.
2. The law, as you note, requires police to make reasonable attempts to investigate immigration status when the officer has a "reasonable suspicion." The law says the police are required to do this on "any lawful contact," which to mean anything must mean that if a cop is having a doughnut and you are on the way to the hardware store then the cop must stop you if you look to that cop like you might be illegal. But what if you're a citizen and refuse to answer? The presumption is you'll be detained or arrested. If you're detained or arrested, that's exercise of custodial power by the police and that means you should be advised of right to remain silent, etc. But of course you've just been detained or arrested because you were silent. This means a citizen of the United States could be arrested for no reason other than refusing to answer a police officer's questions. That is not lawful; if you're stopped by an officer without probable cause then you have the right to walk away, to say no, etc. If the Arizona law means anything, if the words have purpose, then they've decided that "looking illegal" is probable cause and that you as a citizen can be put in custody for refusing to answer. That is a mark of a police state.

jayxray, I've been pulled over without a license or proof of insurance to offer and my English isn't the Queen's either. I'm an idiot, not an illegal. When we start deporting idiots, I'll agree with you, pero en Español.

I've mentioned this in other comments, but the amount of misinformation being spread by people who clearly know ziltch about the current statute or immigration law is staggering.

Democracy in Action states: "For the police, it could be profile aggressively or perish under lawsuits (the latter being the reason the cops can't just ignore the law as unenforceable)."

This statement is ridiculous. The purpose of the citizen-lawsuit provision is to prevent localities from behaving like Gavin Newsom in San Francisco and creating "sanctuary cities" where law enforcement actively attempts to thwart federal enforcement of the law. As long as the police are doing their normal law enforcement routine, and including checks on immigration status on those that get arrested, they have nothing to fear from lawsuits.

Similarly, jomiku wrote: "The law criminalizes not being a citizen". I have no idea what law jomiku is looking at, but it certainly isn't the Arizona statute just signed by the governor. The law requires people to provide proof of "lawful presence" not citizenship. Lawful presence includes all visitors here on valid visas, all green card holders, all lawful asylees or refugees, and other legal categories. Furthermore, the law actually is pretty generous in what is considered acceptable proof: any valid Arizona drivers license or ID card, any valid tribal ID, AND any other federal, state, or local identification document that requires proof of citizenship or lawful presence as a condition of issuance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the blogosphere is full of utter rubbish written by people who have made no effort at all to actually read the text of the statute, or compare it to the current federal immigration laws. People just keep parroting the same erroneous talking points they read from another blog or rant somewhere.

Yes, AndrewHolland, it's almost like Rubio opposes the law, but is also running in a Republican primary, so he can't just say that everyone who supports the law is an idiot. *rolls eyes*

The point is you have a Republican running in a Senate primary opposing the law. Yes, he said a mean thing about the Obama Administration, and yes, he said he opposes amnesty (which is as standard to Republicans as Democrats saying they oppose corporations that 'send American jobs overseas' - i.e., it's meaningless but makes party supporters feel better).

But that doesn't change the fact that he's coming out against this law, which is the point of the blog post.

And how exactly will this law prevent the scenario in the quoted news article? It goes back to what MS sparkleby posted in the comments section of the original thread - AZ has proposed a solution to the wrong problem.

P.S. Sorry.
I didn't mean for my previous post to come across as so patronizing.

I was trying to point out that we should judge Rubio's statement by the context (he's running in a primary against a well-funded moderate and therefore needs conservative support), and I was also aiming for humor.

In other words, it would've been easy for Rubio to loudly condemn this law in a bright blue, majority Hispanic district. However, he's running in a Republican primary race as the "conservative" opposing Charlie Crist's "moderation," meaning he could easily lose if he's not careful about appearing "too moderate."

If it weren't for the lunacy of the modern day GOP (especially its primary voters), would this be a courageous stand or just someone stating what most right-thinking Americans have been saying ever since they heard of this legislation?

Saying one non-talking point during a primary is not the mark of courage. Especially when the talking points of the Party in question are generally bereft of any coherent content.

I'd hate to be the cop in the middle. And worse, I'd know that my real job just got harder because the Hispanic community will be angry and less cooperative. You've got to go after the jobs, not the illegals who come to fill them. Then you've got to provide some legal way for those jobs to be filled.

Stop putting words in my mouth, Doug. I didn't say that not having a license/insurance or speaking English should get you deported. I said that these are likely indicators that someone might not be here legally.

My Best Man worked at a Mexican restauraunt that was raided by INS. He initially had left for work without his ID, but turned around and got it just in case he wanted to buy some beer later. Having that ID was the only thing that stopped him from being hauled off for investigation and possible deportation. He didn't complain about it though because he understood that he fitted the profile and everyone working with him was an illegal immigrant.

No one has the authority to just round up suspected illegal immigrants and just throw them out of the country.

PHOENIX—A drug-trafficking ring that used truck-mounted ramps to get smuggling vehicles over border fences, sophisticated counter-surveillance to avoid detection and hidden compartments in vehicles to bring at least 40,000 pounds of marijuana into southern Arizona has been broken up, authorities said Tuesday (today). ...

"They figured out several ways to breach the border fence," Mr. Burke said. "They were also smuggling marijuana via backpackers, so if they needed to hop [the fence] in certain places they would. They were using stolen vehicles, they were using…ramping trucks. Their only limitation was their own creativity."

If I am asked for identification by an Arizona police officer, I am now going to have to give him my US passport. My last name and my usual identification might cross Arizona's threshold of "reasonable suspicion."

Harmanos, by the way, is a Slovak last name. "Grandpa" Harmanos came over quite legally through Ellis Island in 1907.

Doug Pascover, I have no need to call anyone a moron -- I may call out those who are uninformed or who make logically unsound arguments, but personal attacks are never called for.

However, more to the point, there will be no hailstorm of lawsuits. I constantly encourage people to read the actual text of the statute, and if you look at the lawsuit provision as written, you will find the following:

“A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”

The key language is "that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of immigration laws". Thus, it only comes into effect when a Gavin Newsom/San Francisco style situation occurs. The statutory lawsuit provision does not come into play simply when a disgruntled citizen thinks his local police chief isn't trying hard enough.

I don't mean to be that mean to Rubio, BTW. This is just a very standard press release that doesn't say anything. It takes no position. If you can plug slavery into a press release, that's a good indication, it didn't say anything too meaningful. I think it's weird the Economist is giving Rubio brownie points for having a competent campaign team (you know, he didn't even write this thing). Is the bar that low these days?